Howell v. Willis
317 Ga. App. 199
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Howells contracted Shawn McDonald and McDonald, LLC to build a residence in Lee County, Georgia.
- After move-in, the Howells claimed numerous problems were caused by inferior construction and by Willis’s alleged negligence as a building inspector.
- Claims against Willis in his official capacity were conceded to be barred by governmental immunity and were dismissed; the dispute on appeal concerns Willis only in his individual capacity.
- Willis moved for summary judgment asserting official immunity on discretionary inspections; the issue is whether his inspection actions were discretionary or ministerial.
- The appellate standard is de novo review of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to determine if the evidence shows a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
- Evidence included Willis’s deposition testimony and affidavits, plus Evans’s later expert affidavit, which the trial court found insufficient to establish the applicable codes and to show ministerial duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willis’s inspection was discretionary or ministerial | Howell v. Willis; Willis lacked discretion and violated codes | Willis’s discretion in how inspections were conducted | Willis entitled to official immunity |
| Whether Evans's affidavit could establish the applicable codes | Evans identified codes governing inspections | Codes not properly attached; unauthenticated contents | Evidence insufficient to establish codes; immunity preserved |
| Whether the trial court properly applied official-immunity standard | Willis failed to exercise discretionary judgment | Willis used personal judgment within discretion | Summary judgment for Willis affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burroughs v. Mitchell County, 313 Ga. App. 8 (Ga. App. 2011) (official-immunity burden-shifting on discretionary acts)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (Ga. 2001) (official-immunity framework for discretionary vs ministerial acts)
- Happoldt v. Kutscher, 256 Ga. App. 96 (Ga. App. 2002) (discretionary vs ministerial analysis at inspection)